this comment seems to indicate a tip of the iceburg situation in law enforcement-at-scale versus crime-at-scale! human (and tech) evolution demand innovations, yet self-motivated predatory peoples also can be quick to benefit and adapt new tech. lots of quick corollaries available from this..
sort-of yes.. for the last decades, there have been a steady stream of college students who want to make change for the environment (in the West, at least). There have been far more trained and qualified young graduates than there are jobs. Now, we see the latest evolution of this story arc -- not only are the graduates left to fend for themselves by the US Federal Govt and others, but the few jobs that did become available are gone, and those that had stable careers by getting one of the few jobs, are being fired.
There is an embarrassing trend at the US EPA for example, to get interns and volunteers to do some official work, with no real way to transition to full time with job security and health insurance. This is partly due to the unending stream of applicants, despite few positions.
So from this context, rebuilding research means .. what? Both institutional knowledge store and authoritative titled positions. After some advances in data management by Google and some other commercial players, it is not clear what role Federal science had anyway, from this desk.
Your complaints about there being more graduates than jobs in academia is tangential to the fact that the Trump administration is effectively ending climate science in the US. Without federal funding, research will stop, and academics will leave for industry. The research community will cease to exist, and will have to be rebuilt from scratch if funding is ever turned back on.
Prior to the langstroth hive, European beekeepers destroyed the hive entirely to harvest the honey. Mites and disease were less prevalent and insects were FAR less stressed by the environment.
The Langstroth hive was invented in the 1850s, and the first migratory commercial hives started in the US 50 years later.
In the 1940s we saw a steady decline in hives, but the hives really started seeing massive die offs in the 2000s.
So no, the timelines are not really due to shipping commercial hives. There's other, stronger factors at play.
> 59% of Americans have a 401k or other retirement account
self-reported ? also, substantial numbers of adult people fall into various classifications that definitely do not have such a thing. Are those not counted at all ? also, how is it so precise with no caveats, callouts or error bars ?!
Gallup doesn't poll capital but retirement accounts- a lot of those are invested in cash and cash equivalents - CDs, bonds, etc. That's not the capital-as-control which we're discussing here.
More importantly, the 401k-s invested in the stock market aren't capital either but they do provide intermediating third parties with controlling power without any assurance that it will be used in the interest of the account holders - pretty much like bank accounts work.
Thus, 401k holders are not holders of capital, they only notionally own a share of pooled assets which are controlled by third parties for those parties' own ends and connections - mutual funds, banks, etc.
> That's not the capital-as-control which we're discussing here.
I feel you. I'm saying the exact same thing all over this thread.
> 401k holders are not holders of capital
There's capital and Capital. All 401k holders own capital. But the run of the mill retirement saver has no outsize influence on politics or business beyond what's available to a private citizen. Capital, with a capital C (haha!) controls both.
The Chinese "996" work system refers to a schedule where employees work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week, totaling 72 hours per week. This system is common in some Chinese tech companies and startups. While not officially mandated, it is often encouraged or expected...
Not really sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, but okay, now I know a new term. When you accepted a job at a company, there was an agreement on wages earned for work performed. If there was a definition of the hours to be worked that you agreed to, then you should not be shocked when you realize the company expects that many hours from you. Just because you have become more efficient does not mean you owe less hours than what was agreed upon when accepting the position. If you want to renegotiate your position, that’s between you and the employer. Do not be surprised if your desire for fewer hours is followed by a lower wages as a response.
I'm from the US. People didn't used to be 'work units'. Even the most coked out 1980s corporate raider would not talk the way the average pro-capitalist does today. And the 1980s was considered the era of exploitive greed. It is wild to see the shift where all human dignity/consideration has been removed by businesses/managers as if that's acceptable/the reasonable position. You're comment is very 2025. It would have made you an outcast in the semi-recent past and seen as a sociopath if used outside of very academic economics discussion, not entertainment discussion forums.
People used to be able to sell themselves/their children into slavery and business people were just fine with it. Then we made them feel shame to treat humans that way. Then we made them feel shame for employing little kids. Them we made them feel shame for threatening a person's ability to provide for their family as leverage to dictate. As soon as they could, they backslid on the last one. Certain states are repealing their child work laws.
This is not normal. This is not how the US was the majority of my life.
it might mean that you are obtusely defending a point of view that ultimately, rationalizes any amount of work for any amount of hours assigned to a helpless cog knowledge worker. "We pay you for that" turns into "you are responsible for that" turns into "do it or you are fired" and "its not done you cant leave until it is done and why did you waste time and why are you failing at this task I gave you" etc..
Some countries have labour laws you know. Where I'm from, if I start a new job that bait-and-switched me into working one hour more than 40/week they will get into a lot of trouble.
I'm not saying overtime is not allowed, but if it's expected to be the norm then it very much must be in the contract. If the overtime is not a regular expectation then it must be compensated appropriately, and even then there are upper limits to the amount of overtime.
reply